Submitted by The idea of open-source hardware is slowly slowly but surely gaining traction. VIA Technologies, Inc., joined in on the fun today by unveiling an open source reference platform for low power notebooks, based on its own processor technology (obviously). The CAD files have been released under a Creative Commons license. The machine is tentatively named OpenBook.I know there are two things you want to know: specifications and imagery. Let’s start with a rundown of the specifications of the OpenBook, as provided by VIA.
Processor: 1.6GHz VIA C7-M ULV Processor
FSB: 800MHz
Chipset: VIA VX800 unified chipset
Memory: DDR2 SO-DIMM up to 2GB
HDD: 80GB Hard-Disk or above
LCD Panel: 8.9″ WVGA 1024X600 LED screen
Graphics: VIA Chrome9 HC3 DX9 3D engine with shared system memory up to 256MB
Video Decoding: MPEG-2, MPEG-4, VC1 and DiVX video decoding acceleration
Audio: Realtek HD Audio codec, 2 speakers
Networking: 10/100/1000 Mb/s Broadcom Giga NIC Ethernet Solution
Wireless: Broadcom 802.11b/g or GCT 802.16e
Webcam: 2.01 megapixel dual headed rotary CCD camera
Dimension: 240(W)x175(D)mm
Thickness: 36.2(H)mm (at battery)
Weight: Under 1kg
Operating System Support: Microsoft Windows XP, Windows Vista and all popular Linux distributions
Battery: 4 Cells, 2600ma
Options: USB interface DVD Dual RW
And what does the reference notebook look like when VIA builds one? Quite attractive, if you ask me.
As Richard Brown, Vice President of Corporate Marketing at VIA explains, in lovely marketing speak:
The VIA OpenBook builds on the great success of the VIA NanoBook reference design launched last year, which has been widely adopted by numerous customers around the world. Our unique open approach to case design customization and wireless connectivity flexibility, coupled with the higher levels of performance, further extends VIA’s leadership in the global mini-note market.
Brown also told the New York Times that he expects OpenBooks to cost somewhere between 500 and 800 USD.
Define “popular” please.
On one of the linked sites they talk about Ubuntu and SUSE. And.. G/OS. Seriously, I never heard about it. And it’s not in the Top 300something of Distrowatch either (even though that doesn’t say much).
So what exactly do they mean with “popular”?
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=gos
Gos is number 30 on distrowatch at the moment
It is GOS on Distrowatch and is at #30 presently. I have never used it but if I recall correctly it was the distro preinstalled on the Linux PCs from Walmart. Beyond that and the factor that it is an Ubuntu derivative I do not know much about it. It has seen commercial distribution before though so I would not classify it as obscure.
Is it just me or does $500 for a starting price seem a bit high to be in competition with the EEE? I would be interested in it to be sure but I would have to classify it in a slightly different market with the probable $600-800 price tag for a configured system.
EEE PC 900 is $550. The 901 is set to be $650. I think $500 is well competitive with that
The specs are ballpark. If they can put an Isaiah in it when that comes out the processor should be competitive (though until then, the c7 is as noted a little anemic). Hard Drive instead of flash is a negative for some, a positive for others (space), though there’s no reason someone couldn’t stick a flash drive in there.
So yeah, price is a little higher than the EEE 2g surf, but $500 is lower than the current EEEs.
/disclosure: Just ordered an EEE myself. Happy with the choice. I like flash drive, and slightly smaller size. But I wouldn’t rule out the OpenBook.
Edited 2008-05-28 00:46 UTC
I like this company more and more each time I read something about them and plan to refit all my pcs with Via processors.
Just got to love their concepts and think its the way forward for us in the developing world amidst the current energy challenges.
http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/27/via-openbook-hands-on/
GO Via!
Edited 2008-05-27 23:40 UTC
It’s just marketing when they cannot compete on real performance. About performance per watt? Lose hands down to any modern Intel or AMD offering.
There are benchmarks of the VIA C7 and the Intel Celeron and Atom processors on the internet. Please check them out before you decide to buy a VIA based system.
They really need to get the Via Isaiah chip out soon; I haven’t seen a single POSITIVE review of Via chips in the popular press (the HP 2133’s ratings have suffered due to the C7 being slow). They need a better chip, fast.
How has the design of their processors been coming along? I don’t have anything against them really, I like their mini-itx boards, however back in the day when I “upgraded” from a 486dx4 100mhz to a Cyrix PR200 (150mhz), I gained some processor cycles with a huge sacrifice to floating point operations. We benchmarked that thing and it basically said the floating point compared to a 80287 coprocessor… around 1998-99.
IIRC, which I may not
, I believe that the VIA chips are originally based off the flawed Cyrix processors, does the new VIA versions fare any better?
Or maybe I just ramble nonsense?
Right, it’s still doing floating point maths at snail speed, even on the C7.
Edited 2008-05-28 01:22 UTC
I’m afraid this is mostly nonsense – perhaps due to a badly written benchmark program (not uncommon). Actually, the Cyrix FPU needed 4-7 cycles to do a FADD (a typical operation) while the i387 needed 23-34, and the i287 took 70-100 cycles to do the same.
Regarding FSQRT (important in many early 3D games) the numbers are 59-60 for Cyrix, 122-129 for the i387, and 180-186 for the i287.
On integer code, the Cyrix chip was faster than a Pentium, “clock for clock”, and thus much faster than a i486 (see datasheets).
Also, while VIA sold the Cyrix designs for a while, the IDT/Centaur-designed C3 and C7 has nothing to do with the Cyrix chips, at least not regaring technical solutions used.
/Best Regards
[quote]…coupled with the higher levels of performance..[/quote]
I read it through twice before I believed my eyes that they are claiming this. Yu know what higher levels of performance means when your YouTube video jitters…
I really regret buying the VIA PC2500 mother board as it performs terribly (either CPU or disk controller wise) and it’s not really that cheap. I can get a comparable (and certainly better) AOpen P-M MB + CPU for the same amount of money, even using roughly the same amount of electricity, maybe?
What program are the CAD files for? If they are saved in Autodesk’s proprietary CAD format, then you can hardly call the design “open”.
Well it’s about open hardware, not neccerely open software. (The specs even mentions Windows XP)
Edited 2008-05-28 07:00 UTC
Do you know any alternative compatible files? You may suggest a file format to then, you know…
(the cruel reality is… this manufacture partners are using plain common proprietary CAD… sad, but true…)
(the cruel reality is… this manufacture partners are using plain common proprietary CAD… sad, but true…)
the cruel reality is that there is no open-source cad application availabel (only some little sketching-tools)
and for file-formats it only gets as open as dxf and xt
Quite a few of these Linux CAD applications:
http://www.tech-edv.co.at/lunix/CADlinks.html
http://linuxgazette.net/issue54/frost.html
http://www.roseindia.net/linux/linux-cad-software.shtml
http://caladan.nanosoft.ca/software.php
… are considerably more capable than “some little sketching-tools”.
http://www.cad-schroer.com/index.php?screen=1.3&ziel=Products-MEDUS…
http://www.ribbonsoft.com/qcad.html
http://www.varicad.com/en/home/
A number of them (such as Qcad) are open source.
There is even an option for PCB layout and production:
http://www.cadsoft.de/info.htm
Edited 2008-05-29 03:37 UTC
and which of these tools are opensource and useable?
qcad is just a little sketching-tool (as is autocad)
The open standard is DXF (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DXF).
Edited 2008-05-28 17:24 UTC
I still remember the cyrix chip. Oh man it was bad, my PC would hang suddenly and so many compatibilies issue
Anyway this would make a good low cost smart client laptop. Running Windows player and browser locally and running processor intensive apps on the server via ThinServer
http://www.aikotech.com/thinserver.htm
Regardless performance debate, opening design of such things can only be welcome, even if it’s much harder to build those than it is to recompile software.
Of course if VIA wants to donate one so we can port Haiku to it, we’d be happy to oblige.